Brian Iddon: What role does my hon. Friend think that speculators are playing in talking up the price of oil, and has he given any consideration to the paper that Dr. Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, published in  Petroleum News? It puts the proposition that oil companies have double the reserves that they claim to have.

John Hutton: Yes, they certainly will. It is important to consider all the potential impacts, not only environmental but economic, of a barrage across the Severn. They must be taken into account in the consideration all the various options. However, I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that, given the enormous potential of generating significant amounts of clean energy from such a barrage, we should proceed with the work, have everything on the table, be clear about the way forward and, when we are ready, make an informed, proper decision. However, as I said earlier, we must take into account both the economic and environmental impacts of such a proposal.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business. This week, the Home Affairs Committee took evidence from Cherie Blair on crime on our streets. I am sure that the Prime Minister will have welcomed her intervention on the issue. In her evidence, she called for a more highly visible police presence on our streets. Today, a report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has said that front-line police sergeants spend half their day on paperwork, rather than on the beat. Indeed, one officer has said:
	"Click, click, tap, tap best describes my job; mainly recording performance figures".
	When can we have a debate in Government time on policing and bureaucracy?
	A report this week heavily criticised the Government's 24-hour licensing laws, saying that alcohol-related incidents have sharply increased. Indeed, one senior policy chief constable has said that gang life is replacing family life and that in the last year the number of children admitted to hospital with stab wounds has doubled, so can we have a debate in Government time on mending our broken society?
	This week, it was revealed that the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, was told in 2003 of security flaws in the Government's handling of child benefit records. An internal report said that
	"fraudulent... activity was not being detected",
	that civil servants could
	"do anything without being detected",
	and that "the risks were serious". Four years later, those risks became real when the Government lost the personal details of 25 million people, so will the Chancellor make a statement to the House explaining why the Prime Minister, despite being told of these problems, did nothing?
	This week's Darzi review on the NHS was particularly flattering to my hon. Friends in the shadow Health team, as they appear to have written many of the proposals. Patient choice, for example, was announced by the Conservatives in September 2007; budgets linked to quality of care was announced by the Conservatives in June 2007; and the NHS constitution was announced by the Conservatives a year ago. Labour has clearly run out of its own ideas and has to resort to using ours, so may we have a debate on original thinking in government?
	May we also have a debate on communication by political parties? I would like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady on having recently appeared on the front page of the  Henley Standard . I agree with her that Labour did not come fifth in the Henley by-election because she launched the Equality Bill on polling day, as there are many other reasons why people do not want to vote for this Government at the moment. A debate on communication, however, would allow us to discuss the tactics used by the Liberal Democrats in the Henley by-election. The worst example of their negative campaigning and cynical approach was a leaflet that led to the following headline in the  Thame Gazette: "'Don't use us as a pawn', school tells Lib Dems". At a time when trust in politicians is so low, does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that such campaigning methods are irresponsible and that the Liberal Democrat party should be ashamed of itself?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked about the process for the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill. I can tell him and the House that we have no intention of forcing the Bill through. It simply constitutes a recognition that we need to react to a court judgment that would have had the effect of allowing offenders out on appeal and requiring the Crown prosecution services, having reviewed cases in the pipeline, to drop them because the anonymity of witnesses could not have been protected when the cases came to trial.
	My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has been discussing the issues and giving full briefings to Members in all parts of the House. Any Member who wants a briefing from him or his ministerial team should let him know; he would be happy to provide it before next week's debate. The Bill will be published today, so Members will be able to see it. My right hon. Friend has also been having extensive discussions with peers in all parties, and with Cross Benchers. There is a great deal of expertise and interest in the matter in the House of Lords. The idea is to secure as much agreement as possible, along with recognition that we need to act quickly because of the cases that are in the pipeline.
	One of the fail-safes is the undertaking given by the ministerial team that the Bill is expected to last for a year at the most. It will either fold into the victims and witnesses Bill announced in the Queen's Speech, or contain a sunset clause. We want to get it as right as we possibly can, but that fail-safe is there. Members are encouraged to talk to the ministerial team.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned youth crime. I send my condolences to the bereaved family of Ben Kinsella, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we all feel a sense of shock and horror after discovering that the deaths that we thought had resulted from a fire in New Cross now appear to have resulted from stabbings. Each of those deaths is a great tragedy, and each, as the hon. Gentleman said, instils a sense of fear and dismay that we must work together to tackle.
	In mentioning the high street banks and the Visa cards, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on the fact that this is not just a question for the police. All agencies, local authorities and organisations in the voluntary and the private sector must work together to deal with it. We are drawing up a youth crime action plan and a policing Green Paper, but I shall ensure that the House has the opportunity that it clearly wants to focus on these issues.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the accountability of the national health service to the public. There is to be an Adjournment debate on health today, and no doubt there will be further discussion during consultation on the NHS constitution. The draft consultation document was launched on Monday.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to pensioners. There are two issues at stake. First, there is the issue of pensioners' income levels and standards of living. I work closely with the Southwark pensioners action group, of which he and I are patrons and supporters. He should bear in mind that, of all the groups who are better off since we came to Government, pensioners—especially women pensioners—have benefited most, but we are not complacent and we want to do more.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about pay at the top. We must show responsibility over pay, not only in the public sector but in the private sector, and it must be connected to performance. High pay must be connected to good performance, not bad performance.

James Clappison: May we find time to debate early-day motion 1930?
	 [That this House expresses concern at reports of the closure of churches and the detention of Christians in Algeria; expresses particular concern at the case of Hanina Konider, a 37 year old Algerian woman facing prosecution as a result of being in possession of copies of the Bible; and urges the Government to raise this case and other cases of persecution of Christians in Algeria in the course of the discussions on the proposed Union for the Mediterranean due to commence in Paris on 13th July.]
	This early-day motion has been signed by 58 Members. On 13 July there is to be a meeting in Paris to discuss the proposed EU union of the Mediterranean. Will the Leader of the House specifically request the UK representation at that meeting to raise the question of the persecution of Christians in Algeria and the case of this unfortunate woman, and also to promote the case for freedom of religion generally in Mediterranean countries? Surely we do not want to be in any sort of union where it is an offence to possess a copy of the Bible?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The Foreign Secretary, who is here on the Front Bench with me because he is about to lead on the debate on Zimbabwe, tells me that there is 100 per cent. focus on diplomatic efforts in relation to Iran. No stone is being left unturned in that respect, and a package of measures to create a form of agreement to move forward has today been sent to them for their response.

David Miliband: I promise that that I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene before I conclude.
	Our goal is simple: to ensure that the Government of Zimbabwe reflect the will of the people of Zimbabwe. This is not about Britain versus Zimbabwe, still less about establishing a new British Government in Zimbabwe, but about having a Zimbabwean Government who deliver for their own people. The opposition have recognised the need for a broad-based Government and called for the formation of a transitional Government, recognising the unique political circumstances that now exist. For that Government to be credible, it must be based on the outcome of the 29 March election. To address directly the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), whatever the final composition of that transitional Government, Robert Mugabe cannot be in control of it.
	Our work, and that of the international community, must be focused on four matters. First, we must support and protect the people in Zimbabwe working for democratic change. Election observers and NGOs witnessed the appalling violence and abuses before the election, and we support the calls for the UN to send at least one human rights envoy to Zimbabwe to investigate those abuses. We also urge the AU and SADC to keep some observers on the ground to continue to monitor, and if possible prevent, further violence.
	Secondly, we support further efforts by the AU, SADC and the UN to find a way forward. Whatever they feel obliged to say in public, most African leaders are now sick and tired of having to apologise for Robert Mugabe's abuses. He is an embarrassment to them. Morgan Tsvangirai has said that he is looking to the AU to play a key role in any "mediation" effort—I put that in inverted commas because it is not mediation between two equivalent parties. Senior members of the AU, particularly South Africa, have a massive interest in, and responsibility for, bringing Mugabe and ZANU-PF to the negotiating table and securing a democratic resolution to the crisis. The Prime Minister will discuss that with President Mbeki at the G8 meeting later this week.

Hugh Bayley: It is necessary for us to channel our aid money through UN agencies, and to circumvent the Zimbabwean Government, but what my right hon. Friend says is right. When foreign currency is exchanged in Zimbabwe, their Government take a cut, and some 20 or 25 per cent. ends up in Government coffers. That is a dilemma that we need to face in relation to economic sanctions, but I will say more about that later.
	The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that 1.5 million people in Zimbabwe have been directly affected by the Zimbabwean Government's suspension of the activities of non-governmental organisations. That activity was suspended because the Government falsely claimed that the NGOs were taking sides in the election. The election has passed, and there can be no possible argument for the continued suspension of the activities of NGOs. We should be pressing the Government of Zimbabwe, and pressing our friends in Africa to press that Government, to enable those humanitarian organisations to get back to doing their work.
	Our Government are the biggest donor to the replenishment of the World Bank's International Development Association, so we should take a lead in the construction of an international economic rescue package for Zimbabwe. That package should be conditional on the re-establishment of an accountable Government in Zimbabwe. That would give the Zimbabwean players real encouragement to re-establish legitimate Government, so that the disastrous economic situation in Zimbabwe can be addressed.
	Members of this House need to take account of our own history. Mugabe is a tyrant, but where did he learn his tactics? He spent the first 50 years of his life growing up under white minority rule. When Cecil Rhodes's pioneers moved into Mashonaland in 1890, they simply seized the land. The Matabele lands were taken by the British South Africa Company because their leader, Lobengula, was double-crossed.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is right that during the liberation struggle, ZANU, as it was then, received a lot of aid and support from China. I certainly would not make the case that Britain's colonial history is solely responsible for the situation. I make these points because we in the House need to be aware of why people in Africa sometimes regard our statements on Zimbabwe as prejudiced, and as being based on double standards. That is why it is so important for Africa to rise to the challenge of solving the problem itself.
	If we are looking for leadership, we and others in Africa should look first to the Zimbabwean Parliament. Parliaments are meant to hold the Executive to account, and a majority of the Members of Parliament elected on 29 March were Opposition MPs. There were 99 from the Tsvangirai faction of the Movement for Democratic Change, nine from Mutambara's MDC, and 97 from ZANU-PF. We should clearly say that the Zimbabwean Parliament should be convened, and that the contesting of the election results, which ZANU-PF is still pursuing, should not prevent the Parliament from being convened. We should provide finance and support for the Parliament, perhaps through the Pan-African Parliament, to enable it to meet and to develop its capacity to hold the Government to account.
	The UK's smart sanctions have not been smart enough. It is time for Europe to look seriously at wider economic sanctions. We certainly need to consult those whom we can consult in Zimbabwe—the MDC, NGOs and Members of Parliament—about how the sanctions packet should be fashioned, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, whenever there is any business transaction in Zimbabwe, the Mugabe regime takes its cut. If the UK denounces the ZANU-PF junta but permits Anglo American, Rio Tinto, Shell or Tesco to invest or trade in Zimbabwe, and to take profit out, many will again accuse us of double standards.
	During the 1970s and 80s, I was a member of the executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and I stood outside Rhodesia House demanding political change. The illegal Smith regime had no legitimacy, and the Mugabe junta has no legitimacy. Thirty years ago, I demanded the right of the Zimbabwean people to be freed from tyranny and to control their own political destiny through free and fair elections, and I do the same today. Our Government, and Governments in Africa who care about the future of Zimbabwe, must not recognise the elections, and must insist that new, free and fair elections be held.

Nicholas Winterton: No, I shall not give way. Time in the debate is limited and others want to speak.
	Measures which time and again were dismissed as unacceptable and unhelpful are now being adopted as it becomes clear that Mugabe and his ZANU-PF thugs will not respond to conventional pressure of any sort—political or diplomatic. Strong and unequivocal action, which isolates his regime and cuts off the sources of payment, patronage, privilege, travel, fuel and energy, is needed to reduce the benefits that he receives and which fuel the machinery of oppression. It is heartening to see the growing international mood towards serious engagement to bring an end to Mugabe's madness and the tragedy of Zimbabwe. I pay tribute to the voices of two archbishops—John Sentamu and Desmond Tutu. Their passion for the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe stands in stark contrast to the silence and inaction of so many political leaders in Africa.
	The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who chairs the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, has already spoken. I say with regret that, sadly, the Commonwealth has failed to live up to the challenge that Mugabe presented when he withdrew Zimbabwe from membership. Many of us feel huge good will towards the Commonwealth and feel that it can still play a valuable role in international affairs. It is not too late for the Commonwealth to fulfil its potential and protect the citizens of Zimbabwe, who should surely still be considered to be members of the Commonwealth. They have an even greater need for support since Mugabe petulantly abducted them rather than fulfil his obligations to uphold democracy and decent behaviour.
	I should like to refer briefly to the G8, which meets in a matter of hours. It should not only issue a stinging rebuke to Mugabe, but ask pertinent, searching questions of President Mbeki of South Africa and perhaps deliver to him a slightly less stinging rebuke. He has failed miserably to live up to his side of the bargain with the G8. The House may not know this, but the whole basis on which he attends the annual G8 summits as an observer is the understanding that he will take a lead in Africa on upholding good governance and respect for human rights. He has failed to do that.
	This weekend, Morgan Tsvangirai told a South African newspaper:
	"I have received information that President Mbeki is lobbying at the African Union to have that position taken"—
	that is, the position that Mugabe is president. He went on:
	"For President Mbeki to promote Mugabe in these circumstances flies against the grain of international opinion, disregards the feelings of Zimbabweans and undermines again his credibility in the mediation effort."
	We must resist the voices of those who tell us that we have no right to involve ourselves with what they claim is a purely African matter. That surely overlooks the massive financial contribution that we in this country make towards the humanitarian effort in Zimbabwe and in other SADC countries. I say sincerely to the Foreign Secretary that SADC leaders and the African Union must be reminded that our continuing commitment to the development of all the countries in the region makes it incumbent on them to join us as partners in protecting the development that we are promoting. A failure to confront Mugabe's wanton destruction of Zimbabwe is hostile to any genuine commitment to ongoing development in the area.
	Much help will be needed in establishing the rule of law again in Zimbabwe. The House will know that its traditions of professionalism in the armed services and the police were drawn largely from our own tradition. Similarly, the links between the education systems, legal professions and judiciaries in Zimbabwe and this country are strong. I hope that we will do much to nurture a revival of those professions. The bonds between the people of the country and the United Kingdom are strong. They have remained strong despite the viciousness of Mugabe's actions and his vitriol. I look forward to visiting Zimbabwe again one day soon and celebrating rebirth, stability peace and economic progress in that wonderful country.

Richard Benyon: Casting aside much of what I wanted to say, I want to draw the House's attention to a couple of quick points.
	This week we have had a small success, as Back Benchers sometimes can, in the campaign on Zimbabwe. I do not pretend to believe that early-day motions are anything more than, in effect, parliamentary graffiti. However, following the tabling of EDM 1753 to draw the House's attention to the actions of a company called Giesecke and Devrient, which was printing banknotes for the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, the company has withdrawn from that contract. I do not pretend that that action was a result of the EDM. There has also been pressure from the media and political pressure—I give all credit to the Minister for Africa for his involvement, and to the Government of Germany. This is, to an extent, people power, or shareholder power, and shareholders in other companies can learn from it. If I were a shareholder in AngloAmerican, I would be looking seriously at that company's corporate responsibility policy and asking it seriously about investments that it announced last week it is carrying out in Zimbabwe. A company of that size cannot invest in Zimbabwe without dealing with Gideon Gono, at the very least, whom my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) just mentioned. Gideon Gono is Robert Mugabe's personal banker and he is right at the centre of the illegal criminal cartel that has brought so much misery to that country.
	I do not believe that we should let off companies such as Giesecke and Devrient as lightly as we have. We need to look at the other contracts that they have with the British Government, and I have submitted a freedom of information request. Those companies have to be held to account because, year after year, they have been actively conniving with the regime. There is a sense of real frustration among the newer breed of African leaders who have a more enlightened approach to governance in Africa. We in the west have to provide whatever assistance we can, be it overt or covert, to the enlightened leadership of such countries.
	I was particularly pleased to read the words of Raila Odinga, the new Prime Minister of Kenya. His wholehearted condemnation of Mugabe was echoed by brave comments from other Southern African Development Community leaders, such as the leadership in Botswana. We need to work with these people to encourage them; they must be so frustrated with the lumpen rump of Mugabe apologists, led, as was so ably articulated by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), by Thabo Mbeki. There are few words that one can summon up to denounce him further. The sense of disappointment among those who campaigned so hard for change in South Africa, and the sense of revulsion that he has propped up this regime, is almost tangible.
	The hon. Lady made another good point. What about our constituents? Where do they fit into this argument? They fork out substantial amounts of money, through their own taxation, in aid to countries in Africa. It is exactly right to say that if we are involved in Africa in such a way, we have every right to comment on regimes such as Mugabe's. They cannot take with one hand, while saying, "We do not want your comments on or involvement in Africa in any other way."
	The eyes of the world will very much be on China in the coming weeks, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take every opportunity to raise with the Chinese Government the appalling fact that they were prepared, in the first instance, to allow arms to be sent to such a country—as they continue to do to other countries such as Sudan. They then connived with other countries to find an alternative way to do so, after a brave move by elements of the Congress of South African Trade Unions prevented the unloading of an arms shipment. Too often we say that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake, and that can be an overused cliché, but it really will be at stake if the Security Council cannot get its act together and put some robust wording into a resolution dealing with the Government of Zimbabwe.
	In the dying seconds of the time left to me, I would just say the following. I had the privilege of attending a meeting last week that was addressed by a brave journalist called Peter Oborne, who described with moving clarity what he witnessed in hospitals in Bulawayo and Harare just a few weeks ago. The courage of individuals such as Peter Oborne was not matched, unfortunately, by a group of people in the room, including a former high commissioner to Zimbabwe, who spoke as much unutterable rubbish then as he did to me and other Members of this House on the Terrace when he was high commissioner in 2001. Those people do no credit to the argument. London is infested with intellectuals, organisations and institutes full of people who want to fight yesterday's battles on Africa. We must focus on today's problems, which are urgent, real and dangerous to millions of people. I cannot emphasise enough the need for the Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues in Government to focus with brutal clarity on what is happening today, and on what needs to be done to resolve the problems in Zimbabwe. We need to put in hand the means to bring about change and prosperity for that wonderful country.

Harriet Harman: I would not say that those proposals have been rejected out of hand. They were not Sir John's preferred option—I make no bones about that. We have tabled Sir John's option and published the report. Everyone can see what Sir John said about his preferred option. Although the Government accept a considerable amount of what Sir John proposed in his review and are grateful for his work, we do not accept the comparator and the catch-up, because we believe that they are not consistent with the approach that we want the public sector to take on pay. If I may, I will develop the argument on that.
	Our opinion motion No. 2 sets out the 15 public sector work forces who would form the comparator. That mechanism would be understandable by the public, who would see our pay connected to a group of public servants, and would deliver 2.25 per cent. this year. That is lower than the first year of the current three-year settlement for nurses of 2.75 per cent., but higher than the settlement received by salaried doctors and dentists. For future years, the terms of the motion would ensure that Members' salary increases were consistent with our approach to the rest of the public sector.
	Let me turn to the catch-up payments in opinion motion No. 3. The Government do not accept Sir John's recommendation that Members' salaries should be increased by an additional £650 each year for the next three years. MPs do important work, which is the foundation stone of our democracy. We do not hear about this in the media, but over the past five years our pay has fallen behind inflation. The Government do not reject the catch-up because we think that MPs are overpaid—far from it—but only because it would not be consistent with the approach that we are taking to the rest of the public sector. Combined with Sir John's comparator, the annual £650 catch-up would bring our annual pay increase to 4.55 per cent. On that basis, we reject it.
	Let me turn to the amendments on the Order Paper. Amendment (d) to opinion motion 1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and of other hon. Members, would have the effect of implementing the Baker comparator, but limiting the increase to hon. Members' salaries to no more than 2.75 per cent. this year, 2.3 per cent. next year and 2.25 per cent. in 2010-11. Amendment (d) would then provide for the increases forgone under the Baker comparator to be paid from 1 April 2011, in addition to the increase that year due to the average earnings index. That would amount to an increase of approximately 6.7 per cent. in 2011-12. That is not consistent with the Government's public sector pay approach and we ask the House to reject it.
	Amendment (a) to opinion motion No. 1 stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and of many other hon. Members. It would implement the Baker comparator, but limit the increase to hon. Members' salaries for the current year to no more than 2.3 per cent. Amendment (a) would then provide for the 1.2 per cent. forgone from the Baker comparator to be paid from 1 April 2009, in addition to the Baker comparator increase that year due to the average earnings index. That would amount to an increase of approximately 4.7 per cent. in 2009-10. That is also not consistent with our public sector pay policy and we ask the House to reject it.
	Finally, amendment (e) to opinion motion No.1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central, would have the effect of ensuring that Members' pensions entitlements would be the same as they would have been if the Baker pay proposal had been implemented in full. The parliamentary pension scheme bases pensions on a Member's salary in their last 12 months of service. A principle of public service pensions is that pensions are based on pay that people have received and contributions that they have made, not the pay that they would have received if circumstances had been different. Accepting amendment (e) would create a precedent. If we allowed that approach for MPs, it would be more difficult for the Government to resist the same approach from elsewhere in the public sector. We therefore ask the House to reject amendment (e).
	Let me turn to amendments (b) and (a) to opinion motion No.3. Amendment (b) to that motion, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central, would have the effect of delaying until 2010 the three separate £650 catch-up payments proposed by Sir John, although the full amount of £1,950 would be paid in one go in 2010, rather than being spread over the preceding three years. Again for the reasons that I have explained, that is not consistent with the Government's approach and we ask the House to reject amendment (b).
	Amendment (a) to opinion motion No. 3, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn and of many other hon. Members, proposes to accept the Baker catch-up payments of £650, but delay their start date by one year. Even though the catch-up would be delayed, starting next year rather than this year, catch-ups are not consistent with the Government's approach to public sector pay, as I have said. We therefore ask the House to reject amendment (a). The combined effect of the two amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn would be an increase of about 5.7 per cent. next year, which would be the combination of the deferred indexation increase and the catch-up of £650.
	Although the Government have a clear view on the different elements of the Baker proposals, it is for the House to decide these matters. I hope that the Government position will be supported, for the reasons that I have explained.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). I strongly support what he said and the view that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), who is the chairman of the 1922 committee, expressed in an intervention.
	In all my years in the House, I have very rarely voted on pay, because I have always found doing so extremely embarrassing. I do not think I have ever spoken on the subject before, but I feel moved to do so this afternoon because I am appalled by the attitude of the Government and of my own Front Bench.
	We have the independent review. Sir John has produced a report to which no one in their right mind can take exception, and I believe that we do ourselves and the public we serve a disservice if we slap Sir John in the face and do not accept his recommendation. I agree with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn, because it shows a degree of restraint.
	I want to talk this afternoon about the comparisons, however. Professional and business people come to my advice sessions for help and assistance. I correspond with them daily, and I always try, as I am sure colleagues do, to do my very best to assist them. Yet I am sure I am not the only Member who has observed that it has reached the stage where virtually every single one of them is earning significantly more than we are.
	When I entered the House in 1970, being an MP was regarded as a way of life rather than a job, and I still tend to look upon it in that light. The salary then was £3,250 a year, and there was no trough to get one's snout into because the only allowance we had back then was £500 towards the employment of a secretary. Indeed, only two years before I entered the House—when my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), who sits in front of me in this Chamber and who is present now, was already a Member—MPs were given postage costs for the first time.
	We have moved a long way since then. Some might say we have moved too far. There is no doubt that allowances were brought in because the Government of the day were not prepared to bite the bullet on salaries, or to acknowledge that this way of life had, indeed, become in a sense a job, and because it would be very wrong to exclude people such as the right hon. Member for Islwyn.
	I do not mind saying that when I came into this House as a fairly impoverished schoolmaster, I looked for outside earnings to subsidise my work here, and my wife worked for me for more than five years without receiving a penny piece—it was the only way we could do it. We have perhaps over-compensated on some of the allowances—some of which I do not particularly approve of, although I do approve of the ones that we are mainly talking about this afternoon—but I believe that we ought to have some pride in ourselves and what we seek to do for others.
	Also, it is not unfair to have some regard to what those who work in this place with us and for us earn. I took the opportunity to consult our admirable Library, and in 1970, when a Member of Parliament's salary was £3,250, the Clerk of the House got £8,600. Today, we have what we have and the Clerk of the House gets £160,000—and God bless him, but there are very few senior people in the Clerks Department who are not earning significantly more than Members of Parliament. There are quite a significant number in our Library who earn more than Members of Parliament. There are people in the catering department who earn more.
	I do not begrudge any of those people a ha'penny of what they earn, but I do know that most of them do not work the 70 or 80 hours a week to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) referred, and which we have to do if we are to do our jobs remotely properly. So this afternoon, which is another compulsory exercise in navel-gazing which none of us likes, let us grasp the nettle once and for all—I hope that it will be once and for all, although I do take the points made by my right hon. Friend. I hope that a future Parliament does not have to debate this again, and that Sir John's wishes can be fulfilled. I hope that from now onwards, whatever is earned by Members of Parliament will be determined elsewhere, but we are not going to assist that process if we follow the Government and the Opposition Front Benchers' line this afternoon.
	I endorse the points made by the right hon. Member for Islwyn when he talked about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). If that amount of money is piled up—if we have another two or three years of some degree of austerity—we will put the next Parliament in the position where it would have to reject that £6,000 or £8,000 pile-up; it could not accept it. What Sir John Baker has given us is the opportunity to have a modest increase on a modest salary, and to give the determination of future salaries to another body, so that we can get on with what we are sent here to do and not have to bother with it.
	I strongly support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islwyn. I hope that colleagues in all parts of the House will do likewise, and I trust that this will indeed be the last occasion on which we shall have to debate these matters.

John Butterfill: I fear that where we are now is not where we expected to be when we last had a debate on this subject, on 24 January. At that time, I think the whole House agreed that this matter of our pay should be taken out of our hands and given to an independent adviser of the Government's choosing, who would report to us, that we would implement whatever that adviser suggested, and that henceforth all these rather sordid matters would be taken out of our hands.
	That is not, sadly, the position that we find ourselves in today, and I have to say that I do not think that the Government have acted fairly in any way in relation to the undertakings given on 24 January. They decided to ask Sir John Baker to report to the House and implied that they would accept whatever he recommended, so that it would not be a matter of contention on a party political or any other basis. That is not where we are today.
	The other problem is that the Government have changed their position on a lot of the aspects of the Baker report during the course of its evolution. It is worth examining those aspects. When the Government made their recommendation to Sir John about the correct work force comparator for Members of Parliament, they said in paragraph 17 of their submission that
	"the correct workforce comparator for determining MPs pay uplifts"
	was senior civil service pay. They claimed that that had been supported by the Senior Salaries Review Body. It is true that the SSRB supported it at one time, but as Sir John Baker made clear in his report, he no longer supports it. It is worth quoting what he said on that subject. In paragraphs 32 to 36—the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) commented on the criteria contained in paragraph 32— Sir John states that for various reasons, which he sets out in great detail, he no longer thinks that SCS pay is the appropriate comparator. Paragraph 37 states that
	"I no longer believe that any linkage to the SCS would be a sound, independent mechanism",
	and goes on to give his reasons for that. In summarising, he states:
	"Thus it is clear that linkage to the SCS does not satisfy the criteria of independence, transparency, simplicity or freedom from risk of manipulation and would be unsuitable as an automatic uprating mechanism."
	He clearly repudiates the proposal put to him by the Government in their initial paper.
	Sir John goes on to examine details of the other proposals and the basket of comparators, which he restricts to public sector pay. Of course, many Members have said that they should be restricted to public sector pay, because we are public sector workers. However, the SSRB has said in the past that we ought to be compared with people in the private sector, because our Members are not drawn exclusively from people who have been working in the public sector. Probably the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members are drawn from the private sector.
	We must have some reason for people to want to come here, considering the amount of income that they are likely to give up—even those from the public sector. We run a risk of our recruitment being of interest only to public sector employees or, as has been said, those who are so well off that it does not matter, for whom this is a hobby. We hope that there are not too many of them.
	Sir John deals in great detail with comparators in the public sector, particularly in paragraph 39. He states:
	"There are practical obstacles to the use of such a basket for an automatic uprating system."
	I shall not bore the House with all the reasons that he gives for that, but everybody can read the paragraph. He goes on to state:
	"Again I conclude that an approach to uprating based on a basket of comparators cannot satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 32 above."
	One reason is that he believes that if they are exclusively public sector comparators, they are capable of being manipulated by the Government from time to time. He wants to avoid that, because he does not think that it would a robust way of going forward. He points out that in 2007, PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was then advising the SSRB,
	"recommended that the PSAEI"—
	the public sector average earnings index—
	"be used to uprate MPs' pay and pointed to some of the problems that would be caused by an attempt to link MPs' pay to settlements"
	rather than to what was actually being paid. He says:
	"At that time the SSRB was reluctant to follow PwC's advice, but on reflection I believe PwC were right and, as I explain above, a new linkage to the SCS as previously proposed by the SSRB would not satisfy the test of independence".
	Nor does he believe that a basket of comparators would be appropriate. The basket now proposed by the Government is so huge, complex, opaque and open to different interpretations that it would be impossible to implement. The Government are asking us to accept smoke and mirrors today.
	Sir John concludes, in paragraph 46:
	"I am sure, having considered and discussed the options extensively, that this"—
	the PSAEI option—
	"is the best solution. It meets all the criteria in paragraph 32 above and I believe that, if implemented, it would be likely to last for many years. However, I also recognise that it has presentational difficulties for both the Government and MPs themselves."
	If the Government were to act in good faith, they should accept those presentational difficulties and the House should also accept them. Having said that, I also accept that there is a problem in the present climate with accepting Baker in full. Although Baker probably should be accepted in full, we need to continue to try to set an example, even though that has been ignored in the past. By the way, our pay has increased—

Motion made and Question proposed,
	That this House notes Sir John Baker's Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances (Cm 7416), and is of the opinion that the policy set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by the Leader of the House of 17th June Official Report col. 46WS should be implemented, such that—
	(1) the salary of a Member of this House should be increased from 1st April 2008, and from 1st April of each subsequent year, by an uprating formula which increases the salary by a percentage equal to the median of relevant increases for the following public sector groups: senior military, holders of judicial office, very senior NHS managers, doctors and dentists, the Prison Service, NHS staff, school teachers, the Armed Forces, police officers, Local Government; non-Senior Civil Service staff in each of the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office; and the Senior Civil Service;
	(2) the SSRB should conduct a review of Members' salaries in the first year of each new Parliament unless such a review has taken place within the preceding two years;
	(3) at such a review the SSRB should consider either or both of:
	(a) an adjustment to the salary, consistent with public sector pay policy, to reflect an assessment of the appropriate salary at that time relative to jobs of similar weight elsewhere in the public sector;
	(b) as regards the public sector groups listed above, such amendments to the list as appear to it to be necessary to reflect changes in the pay setting arrangements for those groups; to take effect from the first 1st April following the first meeting of the new Parliament; 2754 Order of Business: 3rd July 2008 No. 122
	(4) each year the SSRB chair should notify the Speaker of the change in salary (expressed as a percentage) and, on such notification to the Speaker, that change shall have effect, subject to any further notification given following a review under paragraph (2);
	(5) the Speaker should lay before the House:
	(a) any notification received from the SSRB chair under paragraph (4); and
	(b) any report from the SSRB following a review under paragraph (2) above;
	(6) an additional salary payable to a Member under Resolutions of this House in respect of service as a chairman of select or general committees shall be changed by the same percentage and from the same time as the salary of a Member. —[Ms Harman.]

Nick Harvey: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the Third Report from the Members Estimate Committee: Review of Members Allowances (House of Commons Paper 578); endorses in particular the recognition of the need for a robust system of scrutiny for parliamentary allowances and the accompanying emphasis in the Report on improved audit; and is of the opinion that—
	(1) Recommendations 1-5 (audit and assurance), Recommendations 6 and 7 (scope of overnight expenses), Recommendations 9 and 10 (Communications Allowance), Recommendations 11 and 12 (travel), Recommendations 13 and 14 (overnight expenses), Recommendation 15 (resettlement), and Recommendations 16-18 (other SSRB recommendations) should be implemented, subject to decisions of the Members Estimate Committee with respect to their introduction and application;
	(2) the principle of central funding of constituency office costs, as set out in Recommendation 8, should be approved and asks the Members Estimate Committee to prepare a detailed proposal accordingly;
	(3) the timetable for implementation of the Recommendations set out in paragraph 257 of the Report be endorsed; and instructs the Members Estimate Committee to report from time to time on the implementation of this Resolution.
	The motion invites the House to approve the recommendations made in the report on Members' allowances produced by the Members' Estimate Committee. It has been just over five long months since the House instructed the Committee on 24 January to consider the recommendations in the Senior Salaries Review Body's July 2007 report on Members' allowances. Members will recall that, no sooner had that instruction been given than the House was plunged into controversy following the irregularities in staffing practices of one hon. Member, the atmosphere that that created, and the judgments made by the freedom of information tribunal shortly thereafter.
	It was decided at that point that the review being conducted by the Members Estimate Committee should be a more thorough review, that it should look at every aspect of Members' allowances and that it should be a root and branch review. I am not necessarily suggesting that we have cut off every branch; that is for others to judge. The report runs to 271 paragraphs, and it follows that no one—not even all six members of the Members Estimate Committee—will think that all 271 of those paragraphs are perfect. The six members of the Committee have had to make compromises between ourselves in order to reach consensus.
	The task that we were set at the beginning of the review was to balance the interests of Members of Parliament with the interests of taxpayers. I do not need to tell Members that the impression created in the national media has not reflected well on this House as an institution or on its Members. The public believe—quite erroneously, in my view—that our allowances are excessive, that there are irregularities in the way in which Members claim those allowances and that the systems in this place are lax. I repeat that those are not my views, but that is the impression out there among the general public, and that is the context in which the Members Estimate Committee has conducted its investigations and the basis on which we have brought forward our recommendations.
	We have a clear need to restore the reputation of this House. Thus it is that our principal recommendation is that we need a more rigorous system of audit and assurance, possibly going rather further than the strict requirements that an audit would deem necessary. We need to do this in the interests of trying to restore public confidence in this House. The events of earlier this year have adversely changed people's impression of our arrangements for these allowances. Frankly, nothing will ever be quite the same again, not least because the freedom of information regime now means that we will publish, right down to receipt level, every claim that every Member makes against every allowance.
	Over the past five months, we have been grateful for oral, written, formal and informal comments from colleagues. As I have said, we cannot expect to make everyone happy, but we have done our best to take on board as many of those representations as we could. We are also grateful to the outsiders who have come in and given evidence and advice to us. They include the Comptroller and Auditor General in the National Audit Office, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, two firms of accountants, the Institute of Chartered Accountants' practice assurance experts, and our own officials within the House.
	When we published our report last week, we made it clear that tougher rules on the way in which we police our allowances were essential to putting right the problems that some people detect and the impression that abounds among the general public.

Nick Harvey: Let me confirm that it is the financial practice, not the political practice, that the assurance team will be coming round to check, but I would not be satisfied to call it simply "financial assurance" for this reason. The scandal that I mentioned earlier related to the employment and use of staff. With respect, that went a little wider than just financial matters, but in no sense whatever would the assurance teams involve themselves in matters of political practice, which are entirely a matter for Members' judgments. We are talking about the usage of considerable sums of public money—and nothing else.

Nick Harvey: I will press on. Introducing this system of practice assurance is intended to put us on the same footing that other professionals in other walks of life are involved in.
	The rules of engagement will be drawn up by Members of Parliament. The rules against which our practice is judged will be drawn up by Members of Parliament. The contract with the professionals who carry this out will be set by Members of Parliament. The House will still have domain over its own rules and regulations and the practices that it puts in place to police them. This is not something being imposed from outwith, but we are using the expertise of professionals in other walks of life so that they can come in and ensure that we are adopting best practice in 2008.

Harriet Harman: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for the work that he has done. I know that, like me, he believes that the problem is about not just current threats but those in future, either to an individual Member—whether a threat from what is described as a fixated individual or a threat to their involvement in a controversial issue—or to all Members from circumstances that pose new and unforeseen dangers. That could be a new terrorist threat focusing on Parliament.
	Once someone's address is a matter of public information, they cannot make it private without moving. I have had the opportunity to have discussions with the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), and with the House's security co-ordinator. I thank them both for their important work and their advice to me as Leader of the House. The security co-ordinator takes the view that it would be a risk to put in the public domain our addresses, or anything that would lead to the identification of our addresses, such as our travel plans.
	This also about the security of Members' families, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, and the security of the public. The publication of our addresses would put at greater risk those who happen to live in the same block of flats as a Member.

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman took my words as such an insinuation, then they were not what I intended. As I mentioned earlier, I am not saying that we are not honourable Members. However, our failure to recognise the concern outside this House about our processes, and the failure to recognise that people expect us to adopt the best practice that has been adopted elsewhere in the public and private sectors, has led to cynicism and damage to the reputation of the House, and we need to address that.
	Over the years, Members of this House have claimed according to the rules that existed at the time, but the rules have changed. An important element of the process is ensuring that when we adapt the green book, Members are fully aware of, and are given proper advice by the Fees Office on, the rules that are in place.

Theresa May: I know that the hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments on the issue, but I can only say that I would resist the temptation to go down the route of discussing MPs' taxation situation. That would lead us into a whole other set of debates. We are talking about the processes that the House adopts for claims that we Members of Parliament make.
	I accept the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) about the problem of sometimes having to wait a considerable time for claims to be met. The best option would be to be able to invoice the Fees Office directly, and for it to pay Members directly, rather than Members having to pay out themselves; but for many expenses, such as those covered by the additional costs allowance, that is not always possible.

Theresa May: I believe that we need both, because they are different—as I have been trying to explain. I shall come on to the point about audit in a moment, but financial practice assurance is about giving support and advice to Members of Parliament as well as checking what they do. It is not just about claims: it is about best practice, and encouraging Members of Parliament to adopt best practice in their offices.
	Audit is about checking and scrutiny, and making sure that MPs submit correct claims. Random audit by an external auditor—and the NAO's reputation inspires confidence in people outside the House—would give the public confidence that money was being spent properly. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, it would also put the House on the same basis as other public sector bodies.
	Checking and scrutiny are extremely important and introducing them would—crucially—incorporate best practice in the House. I refer to the letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). It states:
	"In particular we were pleased to see the proposals for a more robust system of audit and assurance, based for the most part on claims backed by receipts, and by the implied acceptance of complete transparency about what is claimed...these seem to us to be significant steps towards the establishment of the robust regime that MPs and the taxpayer have the right to expect."
	I agree with Sir Christopher Kelly: our responsibility as Members is not to think only about our personal interests, but to think about the House and to do what is necessary to restore trust in it. Amendment (d), in the name of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), proposes a reduced level of assurance and does not incorporate external scrutiny. That is why I believe that it does not go as far as it is necessary to go to ensure that we provide confidence and trust for members of the public. Voting in favour of that amendment, or against the main motion, would be to say to people outside the House that we do not accept that they are concerned, and that we are not prepared to take the steps necessary to improve the House's reputation. If we sent out that message, we would tarnish the House's reputation further. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, that would be catastrophic. Today is our opportunity to restore faith in the House.
	I just want to say something about the ACA proposals. The MEC looked at three options, but I have never left my personal view in doubt, having said in public several times that my preference would be to abolish the ACA and incorporate it in salary. However, I know that that will not satisfy the House's requirements today.
	I do not approve of per diem expenses, and that is why I am pleased that the £140-a-day option was not the one preferred by the MEC. I remain concerned—as, I know, does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—about the element of per diem expenses incorporated in the ACA proposals, as that would mean that some money would be claimed for which there was no transparency.
	However, the overall benefits of the MEC report package outweigh that concern. The proposals would tighten up how claims are made, introduce necessary audit procedures and bring the House's business and procedures in line with best practice elsewhere.
	I fully support the Leader of the House's proposals on MPs' addresses. They are important for us, but also for those members of the public who reside in blocks of flats where MPs also live. They might feel that they would be a target if the addresses of MPs were published in one block.
	This House has a very important decision to take today. We have the opportunity to start the process of restoring confidence in Members and the processes of the House. We can put our heads above the parapet and say, "We understand the degree of concern that exists outside this House, and we are willing to take the necessary action." I hope that the House will therefore support the motion in the name of the MEC.

Simon Hughes: No, I shall not give way, because I said that I would restrict my contribution to six minutes.
	I hope that colleagues are absolutely clear about the need to turn over the page and introduce a transparent system with proper auditing, so that everybody here is affected and everybody out there knows that we have our expenses policed in the same way as everybody else who is in public service and in the public pay. I pray in aid—if I needed to—the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who has been very clear that he and his colleagues will, as they should, keep on watching what we do. He has also made it clear that if we accept the proposals, it will be a good starting point but nothing more, and that watering them down will not do.
	The proposals on properly managed arrangements for constituency offices are welcome, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon by way of my amendment, which I shall not press to a vote, the arrangements need to start as soon as possible. I am grateful for his assurance in respect of that. The separate mileage proposal, which will entitle Members with large and sparsely populated constituencies to more than Members, such as me, with smaller constituencies, is also welcome.
	The proposal to change the additional costs allowance is a good one. It will provide a cash sum of up to £19,000 for a second, London home for non-London MPs, and they will be able to do what they want with the money. It rightfully does not include furnishings and all the other stuff; it is a sum of money, and colleagues can decide how to spend it. That is the way other people are reimbursed when they have to work away from home, and that is how colleagues in this place should be reimbursed.
	It is also right that we end the absolutely disgraceful way in which, under the current arrangements, colleagues from outer London have been able to take full advantage not only of their own home, but of a second home at the same rate, even though in some cases they have lived only a matter of 20, 30 or 45 minutes away from here. We have to be very clear about those things.
	I have two final points. First, it seems right that travel allowances should be tightened further and given only to spouses or civil partners, rather than to other people in a relationship. That seems to be right and good, and we have to be tough about it. Secondly, on the point about addresses, I think that I am in as good a position as anybody to comment on the risks that people have to live with. I have lived under police protection, as have other colleagues, but the proposal to hide one's home address is a complete nonsense. The reality is that one stands for election as a public representative, one knows the risks when standing and declares one's address on the ballot paper.

Simon Hughes: No, I shall not give way.
	The only exception—[ Interruption.]

George Young: I want to contribute briefly to this debate because the Committee that I chair monitors the arrangements for allowances, and we therefore have an interest in the issues under discussion. I begin by thanking our three colleagues for the speed and efficiency with which they conducted their report. I broadly agree with the direction of travel, but there are some interface issues between the existing regimes and what is proposed that we need to tease out and to which I shall turn in a moment. Given the tight time scale and the complexity of the issues under debate, I can understand why this time it was not possible to involve a wider range of interests in the Committee's conclusions. If we go round the course again, it might be better to take slightly more time to resolve some of the issues that remain unresolved and to deal with some of the anxieties that have been expressed in this debate.
	My Committee supports proportionate measures that drive up standards and reduce the likelihood of colleagues falling foul of the rules. There is some evidence that over the years we have made significant progress in that regard. If one goes back a number of years, the principal causes of complaint were on matters such as the non-disclosure of interests and the acceptance of cash for activities such as questions and lobbying. Firm action by the House has dealt with those. More recently, the complaints have been about misuse of allowances, and they have formed a prominent part of my Committee's work. We need the same robust approach to deal with those. The communications allowance is proving a fertile ground for complaints given the inevitably fine and not always clear line between a Member's parliamentary and party political roles. I am glad that the MEC has accepted the implementation of my Committee's recommendations on the communications allowance. I hope that that will reduce the risk of Members facing complaints about their publications, and I strongly commend the case for seeking pre-clearance from the Resources Department.
	On accountability, we need to lead by example. Our arrangements should reflect best practice in the public and private sectors. That does not mean a hair shirt approach, but it does mean systems that are open and transparent about what we are reimbursed for and why, effectively administered and subject to independent audit. The MEC proposals move in the right direction, and I welcome that.
	I want to make one general point and then put down two markers. The general point is this: having been Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges for some seven years, it is my view that the vast majority of Members are honest folk who did not become Members to enrich themselves but to do a useful job in public life. They genuinely do their best to abide by our rules, which are often complex and less than clear. If they break the rules, the consequences can be terminal, as we have seen. I know that not everyone outside will accept that view, but I believe it to be the case, and it should be so.
	The first marker is that it is important, as we improve transparency and accountability, that the House's arrangements for the independent investigation of complaints should not be compromised. My Committee would be concerned if the proposed practice oversight arrangements and the greater depth of external audit were to compromise the House's arrangements for the investigation of complaints. I welcome the undertakings given earlier in this debate by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) to consult the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and my Committee on the mechanics of implementing the relevant recommendations.
	The second marker is this: as we look for greater accountability, we risk the regulatory pond becoming unduly crowded. Putting to one side the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will have an ongoing interest in the issues that we debate, it seems likely that all the following bodies will have some direct interest in the practical operation of the revised arrangements: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, my Committee, the Members Estimate Committee, the Speaker's advisory panel, the Department of Resources, the National Audit Office and the practice assurance teams and whatever new Committee they report to. The risk is clearly one of over-supervision, which, rather than improving clarity and assurance, would have the contrary effect as those bodies trip over one another.
	In conclusion, I welcome the Members Estimate Committee report, and the cautious welcome that it has received from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I assure the House that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and my Committee will play their full part within the framework laid down by the House to ensure that any new arrangements work effectively, and that they help to rebuild confidence in allowance arrangements that are fair to the House and the wider public interest.

Julian Lewis: A few days ago, after the Leader of the House gave us the good news that she would table a motion to enable the privacy and security of our home addresses to be maintained, an honourable Labour Member approached me and said in all seriousness, "Julian, what do you think about the prospect of establishing a trade union for Members of Parliament?" I think that he had me in mind for the role of shop steward—not quite the climactic outcome that I had in mind after six long years as a shadow Defence Minister. However, he had rather a good point because, as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) revealed in a previous debate, no security information was apparently taken by the House authorities or put before the court before the crazy decision was made to release our home addresses en masse in easily accessible form for the benefit of any troublemaker or terrorist at home or abroad.
	I did the Information Commissioner an injustice on a previous occasion because I assumed that he had first suggested releasing our addresses. In fact, the matter first arose when the information appeal tribunal said that private addresses should be revealed, and the three eminent judges, in their wisdom, upheld the decision. On 25 June, 50 to 60 Members of Parliament attended a meeting with the Information Commissioner and, consequently, he has issued a statement. I shall briefly put some of it on the record.
	The Information Commissioner states that his office
	"has consistently taken a cautious approach towards the disclosure of home addresses, whether in the context of the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. In most cases, an address is an individual's personal data and is protected by the Data Protection Act. None of the Freedom of Information decisions about MPs' expenses made by the Commissioner has required disclosure of home addresses."
	He goes on to say that
	"if any disclosure of personal address information arising from a Freedom of Information request is required at all, it should normally be limited to the first three digits of the postcode."
	He concludes that
	"it would be prudent for the House Authorities first to give each MP"—
	about whom a freedom of information request is made—
	"the opportunity to indicate whether they have a current or prospective security-related concern... The Commissioner considers that the House Authorities would then be entitled to withhold each address where such a concern is registered."
	As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, once every four or five years we have to reveal our constituency address in the process of getting elected. But the fact that we have to do that with some of our addresses, some of the time, is no reason whatever for our having to do it with all our addresses, all the time, in an easily accessible form. Of course, if someone who is targeting a particular MP and means to track him or her down in order to do him or her harm puts in enough effort, it will be possible to do so. However, that does not cater for a situation in which someone with a grudge, someone with an obsession, a follower of a political cause or a self-taught follower of al-Qaeda, at home or abroad—who will not even have heard of most of the Members of this House—goes on the internet, conveniently finds 646 addresses and sends 646 packages containing something explosive, horrible or, at the very least, abusive to 646 unprotected mail boxes. The proposal is absolutely insane.

John Spellar: One of the problems with this debate is that most of us quite like the members of the Members Estimate Committee; we just think that they are wrong in one or two areas. They are wrong in believing that their measures will do away with some of the criticism, particularly in the media, but also from some of the public. In August 1944, Gallup asked the public what they thought about politicians. Some 36 per cent. thought that they were acting in the country's interest and 57 per cent. thought that they were acting in their own or their party's interest.
	Let me deal with the issue of the second residence. I say "residence", because it is important to get across the fact that the nature of our job means that, year in year out, most of us have to maintain two residences—one in our constituency and one in London. Helpfully, the report identifies the considerable costs of hotels, but even in spite of the cost, that is not a very suitable way to live, either for Members or their families. Members' families have to put up with a considerable amount of inconvenience anyway. To add to that is quite unjustifiable.
	We should also recognise that both society and this House have changed. As our panel said in its evidence to the MEC, this is the first time that all three party leaders have young families. That is unprecedented. Many more Members of Parliament have young families. As we saw at Easter, school holidays do not always coincide with our recesses. We see that every year in the summer, too. Often, families want to be able to be together, which they cannot in a bare-boards room.
	Another rather odd thing is the position that the MEC took on making the property habitable, rather than having just the four bare walls. The MEC makes a nod in that direction, saying:
	"We can see that new MPs setting up home in either a rented or purchased flat need a modest dispensation to use their allowance to equip it".
	That is in the report, but it is not in the recommendations and no figure is identified, which is unfortunate. The MEC sees no justification for continuing with that situation—in other words, for replacing that furniture or those fittings. I presume that if even a prisoner's television breaks down or their bed wears out, they get a replacement. That is an inadequacy of the report and the amendment seeks to address it.
	The MEC also implicitly assumes that there is one single pattern for Members' accommodation, namely that they have their main home in their constituency and an additional residence in London. I see one of the members of the MEC shaking his head, but that is exactly the way in which the report is written. In fact, that is true for about 80 per cent. of us. For a variety of reasons, about 20 per cent. of Members—often those who were Ministers before 1999—have to have their main residence in London, and they cannot keep on changing their residences back and forth.
	We therefore need flexibility, rather than a rigid system. That is the problem with some of the recommendations, which would create a bureaucratic, uniform system. The report talks about an expanded green book—an ever-expanding rule book—but in a short space of time, that could grow to achieve the proportions of the tax code. That might be familiar to some of those in the Department of Resources, but I do not think that it is a sensible way for us to go.
	If Members look at their own claims, they will find that the great majority relate to mortgage interest or rent, plus utilities and council tax, so we are going to spend large amounts of audit money dealing with a small part of our expenses. The same applies to office costs, because a large proportion of them is salaries. Will there be some cases in which there are problems? Yes, but they will be revealed not through an audit, not even with the £1,200-a-day PricewaterhouseCoopers people looking at the matter. They will be revealed by other discontented members of staff. That is true not only in our organisation but in all organisations.
	We therefore need proportionality. All companies and organisations need to examine how much they spend on creating a system to ensure that there is proper expenditure of their money. They must ensure that this is done in a proportionate way and that they are not spending £100 in order to save 2s/6d. I fear, however, that in response to media campaigns, the MEC has gone overboard in this regard. One thing that I know about consultants is that they always want to find a reason for being employed on the next contract. If a consultant goes into an organisation and spends three days rooting around, they will end up wanting to run the business. They will end up trying to tell us how to be Members of Parliament, just as a previous standards commissioner here tried to take on cases and act as an ombudsman on whether we were doing our job properly. The process is expensive, undesirable and unnecessary, which is why the amendment is right.

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend's compliment is accepted. The principle to which he refers has always been, and always will be, the case for Labour Members.
	Medicine and health care have to change, because they are dynamic. If we never changed, we would not be delivering health care as it should be delivered. People's needs change and so does the science, so delivery should also change. In 1948, cataract operations meant a week of total immobility with the patient's head supported by sandbags. Eye surgery is now over within 20 minutes, and most patients go home the same day. In 1958, hip replacements were still so unusual that the surgeon who invented them asked patients to agree to return them post mortem. The NHS now carries out more than 1,000 of those replacements every week. I remember my first time as a student nurse in theatre assisting with what was called the Charnley operation and seeing a hip removed. Seeing that patient free of pain was nothing short of a miracle.
	Last year, staff at Harefield hospital grew a human heart valve from stem cells and this year, staff at Moorfields have already tested a revolutionary gene therapy for treatment of a type of inherited blindness, and patient choice has been extended on that to all NHS-approved hospital providers.
	People are now living on average at least 10 years longer than in the past. Deaths from cancer and heart disease have fallen dramatically and Britain is one of the safest places in the world to give birth. As a former nurse, I know that dramatic improvements in the health service have not been easy to achieve, but I remember when money-collection buckets for equipment and for accident and emergency equipment were the norm. The friends of the hospital did not just provide some of the friendlier aspects of health care, such as art, music and the like; money was collected for big equipment, like scanners, and they were owned by the friends of the hospital and other charities, which performed much of the fundraising. That is no longer the case. We have first-class equipment in first-class buildings and we must always consider how we have to change and use the skills of the work force, in particular.
	I want to pay tribute to the work force. Working for the health service is a huge commitment, and it is usually a huge commitment for the member of staff's family, too. The staff and volunteers, past and present, continually help to drive up standards and the quality of care for millions. I hope that the media recognises that this week. Yes, we sometimes get it wrong. The system can be inefficient and over-bureaucratic, but most of the time it is marvellous. The diamond is about the only stone that hardly has a flaw in it, but occasionally that will happen. The majority of the time, however, we have to stand up and be proud of the NHS.
	We must be proud of the NHS's values—universal, tax-funded and free at the point of need. They remain as fundamental to the NHS today as they were when it was launched back in 1948. Yesterday, we celebrated at Westminster Abbey. We went across the road to the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, where the amazing, wonderful world-class soprano, Lesley Garrett, sang "The impossible dream" to all those who attended the service. I do not intend to burst into song at this point—I know that I am disappointing Members by not doing so. She said, as Nye Bevan would have wanted, that to dream the impossible dream was what he and that Labour Government did. They fought the unbeatable foe and they won.
	Aneurin Bevan said that a national health service would
	"lift the shadow from millions of homes. It will keep very many people alive who might otherwise be dead. It will relieve suffering...It will be a great contribution towards the wellbeing of the common people of Great Britain."—[ Official Report, 30 April 1946; Vol. 422, c. 63.]
	He also said:
	"No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means".
	I hope that we all continue in that spirit. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central surrounds Trafford, where the first NHS hospital was established. The north-west region is right to be proud of what it does today. We dreamed the impossible dream. We fought the foe at different stages of that journey. We still have a few fights to go, but we will be as brave as the song says and as Aneurin Bevan wanted us to be. I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Six o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 2 July 2008: In column 905, delete "Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab):" and insert "Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab):".